DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 28, 2024. Claims 1 – 18 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0026958 A1 to Filipek et al. (herein after “Filipek et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 10,
the Filipek et al. publication discloses a vehicle behavior control device comprising:
a processor (101)(see FIG. 1B and 12 – 14); and
a memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
detecting a cyber-attack on a vehicle (see ¶3, where “[t]he controller is configured to identify a cyber-attack on one or more vehicle controllers in the vehicle, and respond to the cyber-attack based upon at least the vehicle environment”);
acquiring situation information including at least one of information about a situation of the vehicle or information about a situation around the vehicle (see FIG. 1B and ¶21, where “[t]he vehicle 151 may also be equipped with one or more sensors 152 to identify other vehicles or to detect objects. For example, the vehicle 151 may be equipped with RADAR, LIDAR, cameras, or other sensors that allow for detection of objects. The vehicle 151 may utilize the sensors to detect moving objects, as well as stationary objects”; see also ¶22, where “the cybersecurity controller 201 may have software to analyze data and other inputs to prevent cyber-attacks and respond to cyber-attacks. The cybersecurity controller 201 may be in communication with a driving situation analysis (DSA) ECU 203 or driving situation analysis (DSA) controller 203. The DSA controller 203 may be in communication via a communication network 204 (e.g., controller area network (CAN) bus) or wireless communication with various vehicle sensors and inputs (e.g., a GPS sensor, “cloud” based server, vehicle speed input, etc.) that provide data to the DSA controller 203. The DSA controller 203 may provide an abstracted driving environment information, rather than raw data from other ECUs or sensors”)(Emphasis added);
determining, based on the situation information, a safety level related to a countermeasure against the cyber-attack (see ¶25, where “[t]he system may have various use cases scenarios or thresholds to determine if the vehicle is in a safe driving environment to reboot the vehicle system in the scenario of a cyber-attack. A reboot may allow the cyberattack to cease attacking, or mitigate damage of the attack, in certain situations. For example, if the system identifies that the vehicle is on a freeway or high speed road (e.g., threshold speed of 50 miles per hour (MPH) is exceeded), the system may recognize the situation where the vehicle is stopping for a traffic jam or at a traffic intersection (e.g., for red traffic signal). And if the expected reboot time (which may be stored in the database) is short enough, the system may reboot the processor or ECU. To determine if the reboot time is short enough, the expected restart time (e.g., timing when traffic light becomes green) could be provided by the DSA to predict the driving situation of a feature, or other factors such as communication with a traffic signal or other infrastructures”; see also ¶26)(Emphasis added); and
changing a vehicle behavior of the vehicle related to the countermeasure against the cyber-attack in accordance with the safety level (see ¶26, where [i]n one scenario of a cyberattack, the system may have determined that it was not safe for a system reboot. In such a scenario, the system may determine at step 303 if the vehicle controller that is being attacked is controlling one or more driving functions of a car. The driving functions may include, steering of the vehicle, acceleration, braking, etc. For example, the system may determine if a cyber-attacker has the potential to take-over vehicle control of an autonomous vehicle, as well as a manually-operated vehicle. If the vehicle controller (e.g., vehicle ECU) is not taking control of the driving function, the system may determine to degrade operation of the vehicle at step 313. For example, the vehicle's autonomous systems may stay in control of driving the vehicle, however, it may turn off the attacked ECU/controller or cease operation of all software on the attacked ECU/controller. In another example, the system may degrade operation of the vehicle by slowing down the vehicle speed if it is determined safe to do so. The vehicle system may look to the security response database 205 to determine the appropriate action to take in such scenarios)(Emphasis added).
As to claims 2 and 11,
the Filipek et al. publication discloses the information about the situation of the vehicle including at least one of a vehicle speed, a steering angle, a driving mode, or a security severity level of the vehicle. (See ¶22.)
As to claims 3 and 12,
the Filipek et al. publication discloses the information about the situation around the vehicle includes at least one of information about a driving place of the vehicle or information about obstacle around the vehicle, the information about obstacle indicating at least one of presence or absence of the obstacle around the vehicle or a position of the obstacle. (See ¶21 – ¶22.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Filipek et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0059324 A1 to Yeom et al. (herein after “Yeom” or “Yeom et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 4 and 13,
the Filipek et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the changing of the vehicle behavior includes changing, when automatic driving is being performed, a control timing of handover from the automatic driving to manual driving in accordance with the safety level.
The Yeom et al. publication discloses “[a] control method for monitoring and responding to hacking into a vehicle”. (See Abstract.) Yeom also discloses that “the response control step of vehicle stabilization may include, upon determining, by the at least one of the plurality of the controllers, that an autonomous driving controller among the plurality of the controllers may be the controller in the error state due to hacking, the autonomous driving controller may not output a control signal for autonomous driving, and performing, by another controller, a control operation to switch a driving mode to a manual driving mode.” (See ¶20.) Such disclosure teaches the changing of the vehicle behavior includes changing, when automatic driving is being performed, a control timing of handover from the automatic driving to manual driving in accordance with the safety level.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Filipek et al. publication so that changing of the vehicle behavior includes changing, when automatic driving is being performed, a control timing of handover from the automatic driving to manual driving in accordance with the safety level, as taught by the Yeom et al. publication, in order to create a response-control that places the vehicle in a safe state upon determining that a specific controller is hacked as a result of monitoring.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Filipek et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0265700 A1 to Honda et al. (herein after “Honda et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 6 and 15,
the Filipek et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the changing of the vehicle behavior including changing, when manual driving is being performed, a notification timing of making notification about the cyber-attack to a driver a driver of the vehicle in accordance with the safety level.
Changing a notification timing prior to, during or after a handover to manual driving and based on a stimulus is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Honda et al. publication who discloses “a notification unit configured to notify a driver of a switching request from the automated driving to the manual driving; and a setting unit configured to set a notification timing of the notification unit, wherein in a case in which a course change of a vehicle is needed up to a predetermined point during the automated driving, the setting unit sets a timing that comes earliest from a plurality of candidates of the notification timing”. (See ¶6.) Such disclosure suggests the changing of the vehicle behavior including changing, when manual driving is being performed, a notification timing of making notification about the cyber-attack to a driver a driver of the vehicle in accordance with the safety level.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Filipek et al. publication so that the changing of the vehicle behavior includes changing, when manual driving is being performed, a notification timing of making notification about the cyber-attack to a driver a driver of the vehicle in accordance with the safety level, as suggested by the Honda et al. publication, in order to create a response-control that places the vehicle in a safe state upon determining that a specific controller is hacked as a result of monitoring.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Filipek et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0086796 A1 to Yamasaki (herein after “Yamasaki publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 7 and 16,
the Filipek et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the changing of the vehicle behavior including changing between sound output and screen display for notification about the cyber-attack to a driver of the vehicle when manual driving is being performed.
Changing between sound output and screen display for a notification about an event is considered old and well-known and within the skill of the art, as demonstrated by the Yamasaki publication who discloses that the notification can be performed by a display on an instrument panel, a warning sound, voice, or the like. (See ¶52.) Such disclosure suggests the changing of the vehicle behavior including changing between sound output and screen display for notification about the cyber-attack to a driver of the vehicle when manual driving is being performed.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Filipek et al. publication so that the changing of the vehicle behavior includes changing between sound output and screen display for notification about the cyber-attack to a driver of the vehicle when manual driving is being performed, as suggested by the Yamasaki publication, in order to create a response upon determining that a specific controller is hacked.
Claims 8 – 9 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Filipek et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0200670 A1 to Kubota et al. (herein after “Kubota et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 8 and 17,
the Filipek et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the changing of the vehicle behavior including notifying surroundings of a change in driving mode of the vehicle by operating a hazard lamp of the vehicle.
Notifying surroundings of a change in driving mode of the vehicle by operating a hazard lamp of the vehicle is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Kubota et al. publication who discloses that when “it is determined that the driver is incapable of driving . . . the driving mode of the vehicle is changed to an emergency autonomous driving mode, a hazard lamp is turned on”. (See ¶76.) Such disclosure suggests the changing of the vehicle behavior includes notifying surroundings of a change in driving mode of the vehicle by operating a hazard lamp of the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Filipek et al. publication so that the changing of the vehicle behavior includes notifying surroundings of a change in driving mode of the vehicle by operating a hazard lamp of the vehicle, as suggested by the Kubota et al. publication, in order to create a response-control that places the vehicle in a safe state upon determining that a specific controller is hacked as a result of monitoring.
As to claims 9 and 18,
the Filipek et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the changing of the vehicle behavior including guiding a passenger of the vehicle on a safe posture with respect to a change in driving mode of the vehicle.
The Kubota et al. publication discloses that after changing to an emergency autonomous driving mode and the hazard lamp is turned on the vehicle is transferred to a road shoulder. (See ¶76.) Such disclosure suggests the changing of the vehicle behavior includes guiding a passenger of the vehicle on a safe posture with respect to a change in driving mode of the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Filipek et al. publication so that the changing of the vehicle behavior includes guiding a passenger of the vehicle on a safe posture with respect to a change in driving mode of the vehicle, as suggested by the Kubota et al. publication, in order to create a response-control that places the vehicle in a safe state upon determining that a specific controller is hacked as a result of monitoring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666